Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[ConsiderTheSource]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Biblical faith is never based upon a blind nothingness. It has an object. You know, like the first definition you ignored.

 

Yes, faith is never based upon a blind nothingness.  It is based on indoctrination, programming, and wishful thinking.

 

Yes, it has an object.  The folks the brainwashing, or our own cognitive dissonance and/or existential anxiety.

 

It takes experiencing both sides of this coin to completely comprehend.

[LuthAMF]

32 minutes ago, MOHO said:

 

Biblical faith is based on  hope against hope that there is an aflert-life and a being that will take care of you there - despite very little evidence that either exists and plenty that they do not. To prop up my assertion please refer to Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens.

 

As for the first definition of faith in the screenshot, confidence in people or a thing would, hopefully, be the result of prier performance of said person or thing. My experience, and that of others who's extimonies I have read, indicates, very strongly, that having faith in a god and prayer and Christianity ,or any religion for that matter, would be contrary to definition #1.

 

Yes, I agree with you that Biblical faith has on object. That object is to dupe the masses into following an empty promise so that the purveyors of said duping can reap the rewards in money, power, and having so much control over the flock that they can have sex with anyone they wish and not be outed. 

*"To prop up my assertion please refer to Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens."*

That is correct. The assertion cannot stand on  it's own so does indeed need to be "propped up". Not exactly a desirable admission, there, MOHO. I've read and heard plenty from your Notables. They do teach you how to be pompous, I'll grant you that.

 

Here's the thing: Based upon what you have said thus far, whom you cite or how often you appeal to personal experience, you are wrong concerning the content of biblical faith. Even when you "agreed" you botch it miserably. So stop. Just stop. You really are looking silly. But good for you that you're here because it's doubtful any one at ExC will correct you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

"Logic will never defeat faith."

 

Wow. Yet another unfounded assertion. From one of your own. Deal with him too, please. I hate double standard.

Deal with your own unfounded assertions first.  Then you can take that statement up with whoever made it, which was not me.   You want somebody else's assertion dealt with; but you don't want to deal with your own.  You don't hate double standards; you're wallowing in one right now.

[LuthAMF]

26 minutes ago, ConsiderTheSource said:

 

Yes, faith is never based upon a blind nothingness.  It is based on indoctrination, programming, and wishful thinking.

 

Yes, it has an object.  The folks the brainwashing, or our own cognitive dissonance and/or existential anxiety.

 

It takes experiencing both sides of this coin to completely comprehend.

Sorry you see it that way.

 

It does NOT take "experiencing both sides...to comprehend." Divorced from scripture, these concepts you cite are silly putty you mold and stretch to distort. 

 

I'm finding out very quickly here that the term "incorrigible" is worn as a badge of honor. Also, there is no shortage of garrulity. 

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Wow.  Yet another unfounded assertion. 

Do you not think our "faith" is a blind wish? If so, mine is no assertion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

Do you not think our "faith" is a blind wish? If so, mine is no assertion.

So, you support your assertion with assumption.  Neat-o.

[MOHO]

43 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

*"To prop up my assertion please refer to Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens."*

That is correct. The assertion cannot stand on  it's own so does indeed need to be "propped up". Not exactly a desirable admission, there, MOHO. I've read and heard plenty from your Notables. They do teach you how to be pompous, I'll grant you that.

 

Here's the thing: Based upon what you have said thus far, whom you cite or how often you appeal to personal experience, you are wrong concerning the content of biblical faith. Even when you "agreed" you botch it miserably. So stop. Just stop. You really are looking silly. But good for you that you're here because it's doubtful any one at ExC will correct you.

 

 

Every single post from you, that I have seen, does nothing more than attempt to ridicule, belittle, and demean. You are not interested in an open discussion. You are not interested in an exchange of ideas. You are not even interested in defending Christianity - or anything for that matter. You are either a very angry person or just incredibly immature. Whatever your game I am not interested and will no longer respond to your posts. 

 

Have nice life (assuming you have one) and please seek professional help. 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, you support your assertion with assumption.  Neat-o.

I asked you a simple question. Why will you not answer that simple question?

Is it your view that our faith is a blind wish? Yes or no.

 

[LuthAMF]

3 hours ago, MOHO said:

 

 

Every single post from you, that I have seen, does nothing more than attempt to ridicule, belittle, and demean. You are not interested in an open discussion. You are not interested in an exchange of ideas. You are not even interested in defending Christianity - or anything for that matter. You are either a very angry person or just incredibly immature. Whatever your game I am not interested and will no longer respond to your posts. 

 

Have nice life (assuming you have one) and please seek professional help. 

 

 

Fine with me but those are outright lies. I have not belittled etc. I can ask pointed questions and get snide remarks. You personally cannot handle critique of your skewed explanation. One need not be mean to point that out.

 

I AM interested in discussion. And I most definitely am interested in a Christian defense. I cannot control what comes from the minds and pens of others but very few here are gracious in any sense. Not that I need coddled but even direct sincere Qs are met with derision. 

 

So choose to no longer respond. I don't see the benefit. You'll just choose someone else to beat on.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I asked you a simple question. Why will you not answer that simple question?

Is it your view that our faith is a blind wish? Yes or no.

 

That is inaccurate.  You phrased your support for your assertion in the form of a question.  That is not the same as asking a simple question.

 

To answer the question you did not ask: No.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Biblical "faith" is logical.

Care to deal with this unfounded assertion now?

[LuthAMF]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That is inaccurate.  You phrased your support for your assertion in the form of a question.  That is not the same as asking a simple question.

 

To answer the question you did not ask: No.

Dude, you are a master at obfuscation I must say.

[LuthAMF]

45 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Fine with me but those are outright lies. I have not belittled etc. I can ask pointed questions and get snide remarks. You personally cannot handle critique of your skewed explanation. One need not be mean to point that out.

 

I AM interested in discussion. And I most definitely am interested in a Christian defense. I cannot control what comes from the minds and pens of others but very few here are gracious in any sense. Not that I need coddled but even direct sincere Qs are met with derision. 

 

So choose to no longer respond. I don't see the benefit. You'll just choose someone else to beat on. But I'm not here to hang on your every word anyway,so...

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Biblical "faith" is logical.

Care to deal with this unfounded assertion now?

[LuthAMF]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Care to deal with this unfounded assertion now?

That question is even invalid and you should know better. It seems that  you consider "assertion" as a pejorative term only. Not so. It is also a confident statement of fact.  You know, like if someone "asserts" that the New England Patriots are the best football team of the past decade. It's indeed an assertion but it's not pejorative. Of course, you threw in "unfounded" as your modifier so that's what becomes the issue. 

So, quite simply I can say biblical faith in Jesus is logical because he demonstrated that he was who he claimed to be by raising himself from the dead. But even before that, He never told anyone to "believe" apart from action before witnesses. Now I'm certain you dismiss all of this and poopoo the notion that any of it actually happened. That's what is done here. But the LOGIC used by the witnesses was such that John could write 1John:1-2. And this is a mere drip of information. Consistency is observable. 

 

Now bare your fangs and dig in.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

A logical argument that is based upon a faulty assumption can only lead to equally faulty conclusions.  Your initial assumptions are a) that jesus existed, b) that he was all that the bible cracks him up to be, c) that he indeed rise from the dead, and d) that John (among other witnesses) supported the purported messiahship of jesus. 

 

Until you can demonstrate that these assumptions are not faulty, you cannot assert that faith in these claims is logical.  Your assertion remains unfounded; as did your assertion based on the faulty assumption that I believe faith to be a blind wish.  

[LuthAMF]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A logical argument that is based upon a faulty assumption can only lead to equally faulty conclusions.  Your initial assumptions are a) that jesus existed, b) that he was all that the bible cracks him up to be, c) that he indeed rise from the dead, and d) that John (among other witnesses) supported the purported messiahship of jesus. 

 

Until you can demonstrate that these assumptions are not faulty, you cannot assert that faith in these claims is logical.  Your assertion remains unfounded; as did your assertion based on the faulty assumption that I believe faith to be a blind wish.  

Now who would have ever seen THAT coming? Wow. An entire website dedicated to people who deny God Jesus, Scripture etc etc. 

And then this one feels it is imperative that he articulate his disdain as though his (unfounded) objections and opinions have never before been heard or dealt with. 

Golly. What will we ever do now?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

What will we ever do now?

A good start would be to demonstrate that your initial assumptions are not faulty.

[LuthAMF]

32 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A good start would be to demonstrate that your initial assumptions are not faulty.

Sir, that has been accomplished repeatedly throughout history but they are neither mine nor assumptions. I doubt you're totally unaware

of that so that only leaves either the inability to grasp certain facts or an unwillingnes based upon the controlling sentiment which drives this entire site. It's your standard M.O.

[midniterider]

Let's not deny God anymore. I invite Jesus to come here to this thread and speak on his own behalf. I'm not really into the hard sell by your follower, LuthAMF. In your mighty name, I pray. Amen.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Sir, that has been accomplished repeatedly throughout history but they are neither mine nor assumptions. I doubt you're totally unaware

of that so that only leaves either the inability to grasp certain facts or an unwillingnes based upon the controlling sentiment which drives this entire site. It's your standard M.O.

If this is true, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that your initial assumptions are not faulty.  All you would need to to would be to present these "certain facts" of which you speak.  Why have you not done so?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

It's your standard M.O.

This is yet another unfounded assertion, based, no doubt, on yet another faulty assumption you have made about me.  The fact is that you know nothing about me or what my modus operandi might be.

[LuthAMF]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If this is true, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that your initial assumptions are not faulty.  All you would need to to would be to present these "certain facts" of which you speak.  Why have you not done so?

Such a predictable response. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you've already heard it all. I have nothing new to offer that better minds have not already produced. Ive also read enough of the testimonies and autobiographies to gather that the common boast is expertise in scripture, history etc. So everything I could offer has already been dismissed in alleged superior wisdom. Ive encountered it innumerable times. You have already demonstrated that you're very quick to say Jesus never existed so you don't care one whit what ANYONE presents. All you gotta do is repeat your denial. Not real conducive to discussion. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

You have already demonstrated that you're very quick to say Jesus never existed

Please support this claim by producing a direct quote from me in which I say jesus never existed.  Otherwise, yet another unfounded assertion. 

[LuthAMF]

39 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Let's not deny God anymore. I invite Jesus to come here to this thread and speak on his own behalf. I'm not really into the hard sell by your follower, LuthAMF. In your mighty name, I pray. Amen.

Hebrews 1:1,2

He already has.